New London - Wade A. Hyslop Jr.'s first order of business after being elected the 121st mayor of the city Monday night was to replace the blue-and-white novelty license plate the mayor gets to put on his car.
”Blue and white is Waterford,'' said Hyslop as he held up the
new plate that read “City of New London Mayor” - this one sporting New
London High School green and gold.
”Whaler pride!'' Hyslop shouted.
Hyslop replaces Kevin J. Cavanagh, who served one year as mayor, which
is largely a ceremonial position. Councilor John J. Maynard was
selected as deputy mayor. Hyslop, a 14-year veteran of the state
legislature, retired from state
politics in 2004 and then decided he had more to give. So he ran for
City Council in 2007, and won.
Although he is not the first black mayor of the city - Leo Jackson
achieved that honor in 1979 - Hyslop says it is important to him to be
recognized by his peers and to be mayor of his hometown while Barack
Obama is president.
In 1968, Robert Kennedy said that in 40 years the United States could
have a Negro president, Hyslop reminded the audience.
”We have arrived,'' he said to a cheering gallery that filled the
council benches and rows of folding chairs brought out for the
occasion. “It's important for people out there to know that there are
people here who can represent everybody.'' When people see others
who look like themselves in positions of power, it gives them hope, he
added.
”We've seen many people who have gotten involved in the past
presidential election,” Hyslop said. “We want to keep them involved.''
After
introducing family and friends, Hyslop ordered the meeting to
reconvene on Wednesday instead of tonight so that people can attend New
London's state playoff football game against Montville.
”There are a lot of people who would like to support our team,'' said
Hyslop, who is a 1963 NLHS graduate.
”New London has arrived,'' he told the crowd. “We're not turning a
corner, we're on a straightaway.”
Those attending Monday's ceremony included Hyslop's six sisters,
assorted nieces and nephews, members of Trinity Missionary Baptist
Church, where he is pastor, and political friends from near and far who
have stayed in touch, including Attorney General Richard Blumenthal,
and Democratic state Reps. Linda Orange of Colchester and Ernest Hewett
of New London, as well as Sen. Andrea Stillman of Waterford. Seven
former New London mayors were also in attendance.
Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, who served in the legislature
with Hyslop, administered the oath of office.
”There's no one better to be a spiritual leader and a government
leader,'' she said. “I know you will bring integrity and humility to
the office.''
Hyslop counts former mayors Jackson, Jane Glover and Eunice Waller
among those who have mentored him through his political career.
Glover, who ran all seven of Hyslop's state campaigns, first came to
know Hyslop when he was appointed to fill a vacancy on the city's Board
of Education. Glover had wanted the appointment.
”I said, 'Who is this Rev. Hyslop?' '' Glover recalled. “I wanted to go
to his house and tell him off.”
But Glover didn't do that and, in time, the two became friends.
Together they founded the Kente Cultural Center in New London, where
Glover is executive director.
”We laughed about it later,'' she said. “He's always been friendly. He
never even knew I was mad until I told him.''
And that, said Glover, is what has made Hyslop an effective politician.
”He's not bullheaded or anything like that. It's not 'my way or the
highway,' '' she said.
When Hyslop left the 39th District seat, he was deputy speaker of the
House. But his rise to the leadership position took a rather
untraditional route.
His political career began as a city selectman - a position that had no
power and no duties. He was then appointed to the Board of Education
and elected to a full-term. He was tapped almost immediately in 1990 to
run for state representative.
His campaign was a grassroots one that took on the Democratic Town
Committee and relied on people who had little or no political
experience. He challenged Margaret Mary Curtin, now a fellow councilor,
who was the Town Committee's candidate, to a primary. There were
door-to-door bilingual voter registration drives and a focus on
low-income housing complexes that had traditionally been ignored by
politicians. Hyslop won overwhelmingly in the primary, and the
election. Voters sent him back to Hartford six more times.
”I've always tried to be a role model,'' he said. “I always tell people
you don't know who's watching you at any given time. You should always
do the best you can do.”
He said he enjoyed working in Hartford and hopes he can use his
experience at the local level.
”I hope I'll be able to provide some insight in how we can best focus
on the needs of New London,'' he said. “I'd like to lend my experience
to the city, and I hope to be somewhat useful in my quest to help.''
Montville –– When Montville High School senior Ashley Gibbs returned to school briefly Thursday the strong smell of cleaning fluid assaulted her nostrils.
Gibbs was among several hundred students escorted into the school to get items stored in their lockers. Workers completed a thorough cleaning of the school Wednesday, eliminating the lingering smell of smoke from the fire Sunday that heavily damaged the auditorium and gymnasium.
“I was so shocked that it was so clean already,” Gibbs said. “I couldn't even tell that it was even on fire because you couldn't get to that part of the school.”
A
wall has been erected around the portion of the school closest to the gymnasium and auditorium. It seals off the
charred remains of the stage area, lighting and other
equipment destroyed by the blaze. Workers also are
taking steps to ensure that dust particles and
potentially hazardous material are contained
while asbestos is cleared.
Students
were escorted in groups of about 25, walking from the Tyl Middle
School through the school grounds to the high
school. They were given about 10 minutes to get what
they needed out of their lockers,
and at about 9:30 a.m. they were bused home. Senior Ben Patnode
got a book he wanted and an empty wallet from his locker.
Patnode said the short day helped reassure him
that everything will be close to normal when students
return to school Jan. 2.
“It gave us some closure and they also let us go so that we can see what's been done and so we see that the entire school is not gone,” he said. “It felt good knowing that we didn't lose everything and that all the lockers and classrooms are still safe.”
Students
began arriving at the middle school shortly after 7:30, meeting
first in the gymnasium for a breakfast that
included egg sandwiches, cereal, fruits, orange juice and
milk. They then gathered in the middle school
auditorium, where high school Principal William F. Farrington
Jr. described the situation. Farrington said that teachers and
staff have been working and will continue
to work over the Christmas break to prepare for
the school's reopening. Administrators want daily
activities in the school to
continue as normally as possible during the cleanup and
renovation, he
said.It will take up to a year for repairs and
renovations to be completed at an estimated cost of more than
$3 million. School officials are awaiting the
results of a structural engineering study to determine
how many of the steel trusses and supporting
posts in the auditorium have to be replaced.
School
Superintendent David Erwin said school officials were informed that
the gymnasium floor could be saved. Large
sections of the roof, which was cut away by firefighters
to release the intense heat of the fire, must
be replaced, Erwin said. “We have gotten a lot of support and
advice, and I really think this has
brought everyone closer together,” Erwin said.
Major overhaul of
schools proposed
DAY
By Robert Westervelt - Published on 5/31/2001
Montville — Board of Education members Wednesday night outlined a massive $41.1 million school improvement plan that calls for additions to five of the town's six schools and renovations and site work at all of them.
Nearly all of the seven-year plan would be eligible for about 65 percent reimbursement from the state, reducing the cost to local taxpayers to an estimated $17 million, according to school officials. The proposal will be reviewed by the Town Council later this month and would have to go before voters at a townwide referendum later this year.
“This is preliminary and we are saying here that it is going to increase the tax burden in the future,” said Superintendent David Erwin. “If we are going to go through with this we want to let the public know that we're presenting the best cost-effective project to the taxpayers of this town.”
Erwin stressed that the best way to save money is to complete all of the work in a single project. The study was presented by W. Albert Jacunski of Jacunski Humes Architects LLC of Newington. Jacunski and other members of the firm spent a year studying the school infrastructure and facilities, interviewing staff, faculty and students at all of the town's schools.
Under the plan, Mohegan Elementary School would be expanded by 5,800 square feet at a cost of $5.7 million. About 21,000 square feet of the interior of the building would be renovated and the roof on the east wing would be repaired. About $440,000 in site work is proposed, as is about $1.5 million for fire and building code updates.
Montville High School would get about $16.9 million in improvements, including eight new classrooms, a new cafeteria, a main office area, a library and music space totaling 16,925 square feet of space. A 2,400-square-foot maintenance building and a 1,800-square-foot space to for a physical education bathroom and storage facility would be built. The plan also calls for a new gymnasium and athletic field bleachers at a cost of $620,000, a new auditorium lighting and sound system and window replacement at a cost of $856,000.
The Palmer
Alternative Education School would get
$2.6 million in upgrades. The Charles E. Murphy Elementary School would
get $7.5 million in improvements, including a 7,135-square-foot
addition
of
five classrooms, interior renovations and fire
and safety code upgrades. The plan calls for the elimination of the
school's
electric heat to add a new central boiler plant at a cost of about
$870,000.
A 12,845-square-foot addition, including three classrooms, a gym and a library, is planned for the Oakdale Elementary School. The school would get $7.5 million in improvements.
The Leonard J. Tyl Middle School, the town's newest school, would get $795,000 worth of improvements, including a 1,800-square-foot addition for storage and bathrooms.
Town Council Chairman Joseph Jaskiewicz said the proposal would go before the Town Council June 11.
“We will
likely give it our blessing to go to the
state, but we're going to really look at this,” he said. “I'm
sure
we're going to have further discussions before this goes to the town
voters.”
Prediction:
since the owner of this company is the same guy who owns the New
England Patriots football team, depending on how the judge sees it,
there may not be any more Patriots fans in...Montville, CT!
I don't
think they will be
able to
bond
this even if
they want to...but maybe I'm all wet!
Montville
Voters OK $12M To Pay Rand-Whitney; Bond money will satisfy judgment
against town
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 10/8/2008
Montville - The town will issue up to $12 million in bonds to pay
Rand-Whitney Containerboard to satisfy a federal court judgment against
the town. With 13 percent of eligible people voting, taxpayers
approved the request 988 to 246 at a townwide referendum Tuesday.
After waiting anxiously for the results to be announced, Mayor Joseph
Jaskiewicz thanked voters for their support.
”I can't tell you how pleased I am,” Jaskiewicz said.
The mayor will talk to attorneys and financial advisers today to begin
the bonding process. Town Council member John Geary, who also
serves
on the Water Pollution Control Authority, said it is a “tragedy” that
the taxpayers had to consider such a question, but that he was relieved
it passed.
”We lost on the basis of a technicality,” Geary said of the U.S.
District Court judge's 2002 decision to set aside an earlier jury
decision in favor of the town. “Anyone who attended the trial realized
that the jury had it right.”
In August, a federal appellate court upheld the lower court judge's
ruling that the town owes the paper making company $11.68 million.
Rand-Whitney claimed that the amount would pay for past and future
damages done to its linerboard operations when the town failed to
comply with a 60-year contract signed in 1992 to provide clean water to
the company.
The contract requires the town to treat wastewater sent by the company
to the town's treatment plant and then return the cleaned water to the
mill. At issue was the town's inability to clean the water to the
standard it promised.
Late Tuesday, Patrick Kinney, a spokesman for Rand-Whitney, said the
company is pleased with the results and that it looks forward to
working with the town to solve whatever outstanding issues
remain.
Kinney said prior to the judgment, town and company officials were
working diligently on a settlement. He said he hoped that “spirit of
cooperation” continues.
”We understand that this issue has been contentious and troubling for
the community, but it's one where we signed a contract and we want to
run our business and continue to do business in Montville. With the
judgment behind us we really do look forward to working with the
leadership of the town,” Kinney said.
Several people who cast a ballot Tuesday said they voted yes not
because they support the judgment, but because they feared what would
happen if the referendum question was rejected.
If the bond request had been rejected, Rand-Whitney still would have
been paid; the money would have come from a separate bond the town
acquired through an insurance company prior to it appealing the U.S.
District court ruling. The insurance company would have paid
Rand-Whitney and then could have sought restitution from the town
within 90 days.
The WPCA is researching a way to improve the quality of the water
returned to Rand-Whitney.
Interesting
indirect impact of financial crisis - what rate will Montville have to
pay for these bonds?
Rand-Whitney judgment rests with taxpayers; Voters to decide
Tuesday on whether to bond up to $12M
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 10/4/2008
Montville - When the town signed the contract with Rand-Whitney
Containerboard in 1992, the proposal to recycle the wastewater from the
mill and return it for its operations was possibly the first of its
kind in the country. Town and mill officials were excited by the
possibilities and anxious for the process to commence.
It didn't take long before officials realized that the process was
deficient. The large volume of water from the paper mill was too
difficult to treat, and the company was complaining that what was being
returned was too dirty to use.
The end result is a federal judgment rendered in August against the
town to pay Rand-Whitney $11.68 million for past and future damages
caused by the water to its equipment. The decision ends 12 years worth
of litigation involving accusations of fraud against the company and
incompetency and possible deception against the town.
Taxpayers will decide Tuesday whether to allow the town to bond up to
$12 million to pay the court order. The bond, plus millions of dollars
in interest, will be repaid over 15 years.
Town officials have asked residents to put aside their anger and to
approve the request. If the bonding package fails, they say, the town
might be in worse shape than it is now. As a condition to appeal an
original federal judgment against the town, officials had to acquire a
$16 million insurance bond. If the referendum fails, the town is
required to use the insurance bond to pay Rand-Whitney. If the
insurance bond is used, that company will then seek repayment of the
bond, and legal fees, from the town, possibly within 90 days, the
amount of time the court set for the town to pay the judgment.
Still, the prospect of having to bond millions of dollars and get
nothing in return - no town park, no new school - has left a sour taste
in many residents' mouths. Several are outspoken about their disdain
for the proposal and are actively campaigning against the referendum
question's approval.
The troubles related to the 12-year-old lawsuit spanned not only a
decade but several political administrations held by different
political parties.
The 60-year contract was signed in mid-1992, a time when the economy in
the area was reeling from the collapse of the national housing marking
and downsizing of the defense contractors. At that time one of the
town's attorney cautioned officials against putting their names on the
document, according to published reports. Officials signed the contract
anyway based on an assurance from Rand-Whitney that the quality of the
water sent by their updated mill would be the same as what had been
historically sent to the treatment plant.
When the new paper mill came online in 1995, it was immediately
apparent there was a problem with the water. After a year of no
resolution - the company offered to give the town $1 million for the
work if the town bonded the money because it was eligible for a lower
interest rate, but the offer was not accepted - the company sued the
town in 1996.
The lawsuit was put on hold until 2001, during which time the two sides
tried to rectify the issue by upgrading the treatment plant or
proposing to segregate the wastewater sent to and from the company from
the rest of the water treated by the plant. The later proposal was
rejected by the state Department of Environmental Protection.
When the lawsuit finally went to trial in 2002, a federal jury found in
favor of the town, saying it was a victim of corporate deception. The
jury determined that Rand-Whitney officials had intentionally deceived
the town by saying the quality of the water it would send after the
mill's 1995 expansion would be the same at it was sending until that
time.
The victory did not last long. U.S. District Court Judge Holly
Fitzsimmons set aside the jury's decision and in 2005 seated a second
jury to decide how much the town owned the firm in damages. That jury
ordered the town to pay Rand-Whitney $10 million plus legal fees. The
judge also later refused to let the town rewrite the 60-year contract,
claiming that the town had failed to prove its case that officials had
relied on false information provided by the company when the agreement
was drafted.
Town officials recently estimated it would have cost nearly $16 million
if the full judgment was upheld by a federal appellate court.
Devastated by the judgment, the town appealed. It had some success. In
August this year the appellate court judge's panel upheld the original
$10 million order, plus $1.68 million in interest. The panel dismissed
the claim for legal fees, stating that as a rule of law neither side is
required to pay legal fees for the other.
Montville
tries to persuade voters to pay Rand judgment over 15 years;
Rejecting $12M bond referendum could cost town dearly, and sooner
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 9/25/2008
Montville - If the Oct. 7 referendum
question regarding the $11.68 million Rand-Whitney Containerboard
judgment fails, the consequences could be worse than having to pay the
debt over 15 years.
Town officials and attorneys told
taxpayers Wednesday evening that despite their anger and frustration,
it is in the best interests of the town - and, possibly, residents'
wallets - to approve the town's request to bond the debt over 15 years.
”There is really no option,
unfortunately, and it pains me to tell you that,” Attorney Dina S.
Fisher of Robinson & Cole told the nearly 60 people in the Leonard
J. Tyl Middle School auditorium.
In August, a federal appellate court
panel of judges affirmed a lower court's decision that the town failed
to adhere to a 1992 contract that promised the wastewater treatment
plant could provide the company with a specific quality of water
necessary in its production.
The town now has until the end of
November to pay the judgment.
Once the attorneys and town
officials finished a quick synopsis of the history of the federal
lawsuit, which stretches back to 1996, resident Lee Wolf cut to the
chase.
”How will it affect the mill rate?”
Wolf asked.
After Finance Director Theresa
Fafard shared the possible effects on taxpayers annually over the
15-year life of the bond, Wolf said, “I hope every season of those 15
years the Patriots lose.”
The Kraft family, which owns
Rand-Whitney, also owns the New England Patriots football franchise.
Attorney S. Frank D'Ercole said that
if the request is rejected on Oct. 7 and an insurance company pays the
debt, the insurance company can require the town to pay the entire
amount back in one lump sum within 90 days.
If the town does not pay, the
insurance company can sue to collect the payment and, unlike in the
Rand-Whitney case where the town is not liable for the company's legal
fees, it may be required to pay the insurance company's legal expenses.
”It's bad or worse, take your pick,”
resident David Bottigliere said of the situation.
When asked whether the water issues
have been corrected, Gene Jambour, chairman of the WPCA, said the
agency is working on correcting the problem now.
A previous proposal to segregate the
water sent by Rand-Whitney and treat it separately before sending it
back to the company was rejected by the state Department of
Environmental Protection in 2001, Fisher said.
Members of the Town Council and the
Water Pollution Control Authority will meet tonight at 7 at the Town
Hall, first in a closed-door session and then in public, to discuss the
status of the Memorandum of Understanding with Rand-Whitney. The
document had been drafted in an effort to settle the case and establish
a means to rectify the water-treatment issues.
-----------------
THE
EFFECT ON THE TAX RATE, PROPERTY OWNERS
In 2010, at the peak of the bond repayment, the effect on the tax rate
will be an additional 0.84 mills. This means that the owner of a
property assessed at:
The estimates could change depending on
the fluctuation of the municipal budget and the town's Grand List.
SOURCE: MONTVILLE FINANCE DIRECTOR
THERESA FAFARD
THE VOTING
What: Referendum on request to
take out $12 million in general obligation bonds to pay off the court
imposed debt to Rand-Whitney Containerboard Ltd.
When: Oct. 7 from 6 a.m. until
8 p.m.
Where: One of three polling
places:
Absentee ballots are available in the
town clerk's office at Town Hall.
WHAT THE TOWN OWES
A breakdown of what the town owes Rand-Whitney:
Judgment: $10,516,081
Post-judgment interest: $1,164,199
Total owed: $11,680,280
SOURCE: TOWN OF MONTVILLE
Montville's Silver Lining: Loss Could
Have Cost $4M More
DAY
By Megan Bard
Published on 8/27/2008
Montville - The town may owe a
significant amount to Rand-Whitney Containerboard Ltd., but if
officials hadn't appealed a 2006 jury award in favor of the company, it
could have been far worse financially, according to town officials.
In 1996, Rand-Whitney sued the
Montville, claiming town officials did not comply with a 1993 contract
when they failed to provide the required quality of water from the town
treatment plant to the company. The containerboard company uses the water
to produce its products and claimed the substandard quality damaged its
output.
On Tuesday, town officials said if
there is a silver lining to the decision made Monday by a judges' panel
of the U.S. 2nd District Court of Appeals, it is that it clarified a
clause in the contract that the town is not liable for paying the
company's legal fees in any disputes arising from the contract. Based
on this, the judges agreed to reject Rand-Whitney's request that the
town pay roughly $4 million in accrued and potential legal fees
associated with the appeal process.
For this reason, instead of paying
Rand $15.19 million in damages, interest and legal fees, the town owes
the company $11.68 million. The legally imposed debt to the company is
the result of the judges' reluctance to reverse various decisions by a
lower court in favor of the company, including that the town erred when
it did to provide the quality of water officials said they would to the
company from the municipal treatment plant.
Townspeople have 90 days from Monday
to decide how they will pay the legally imposed debt, which increases
by $1,460 in interest each day. Town Bond Counsel Frank D'Ercole said
Tuesday the Town Council is expected to have a special meeting Thursday
to consider a bond resolution to borrow $12 million in
general-obligation bonds to pay the judgment. The town would have 15
years to pay off the bond using municipal taxes, he said.
If the council approves the
resolution, the next step is for taxpayers to vote on the issue at a
referendum, possibly in September or early October.
If taxpayers reject the proposal, a
separate bond taken out by the town in 2007 with an insurance company,
as a condition of its federal appeal, will be used to pay the debt. If
this happens, the insurance company would be expected to solicit the
town for reimbursement of that bond, D'Ercole said.
Mayor Joseph Jaskiewicz said Tuesday
he hopes taxpayers abide by the court's decision and support the
general-obligation bond request.
Jaskiewicz said he might recommend
to councilors Thursday that they consider using $1 million or more from
the town's budget surplus to offset the amount needed to be bonded. He
said using some surplus funds could save the town hundreds of thousands
of dollars in interest payments over the 15-year payoff and decrease
the town's debt-service obligation, lowering the amount taxpayers would
have to pay.
----------------
A breakdown of what
the town owes Rand-Whitney:
Judgment: $10,516,081
Post-judgment interest: $1,164,199
Total owed: $11,680,280
SOURCE: TOWN OF MONTVILLE
Appellate court rules against
Montville
DAY
Posted on Aug 26, 7:03 AM
EDT
MONTVILLE, Conn. (AP) -- A federal
appeals court has upheld a ruling that Montville must pay $11.5 million
to a cardboard box company in a water dispute.
Three years ago a Bridgeport federal
jury awarded Rand-Whitney Containerboard millions of dollars because
the town had failed to comply with a 1993 agreement with the
company. The town said
it would provide the quality of water the company needs to produce its
paper products, but the company contends it had not done so.
The jury in 2005 found that water
treated and returned to Rand-Whitney contained dissolved solids the
town could not remove.
A panel of three judges for the 2nd
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York concluded Monday that three
of the town's four requests to reverse various decisions made by the
lower court are without merit.
The appeals court upheld the town's fourth request which is to not pay for Rand's attorney's fees.
Montville awaits ruling on appeal; A
Rand-Whitney case victory could affect contracts
DAY
By Amy
Renczkowski
Published on 7/19/2008
Montville - The contracts the
town has with Rand-Whitney Containerboard Corp. could be affected by
the outcome of the town's appeal in the U.S. 2nd District Circuit Court
of Appeals.
If the town wins most of the motions
in its appeal, especially the motion to allow the 2002 verdict favoring
the town, Mayor Joseph Jaskiewicz said he would look to the court to
allow the 65-year agreement it has with the paper company to be
modified.
”We would definitely have that
looked at,” Jaskiewicz said.
The town's attorney, Linda Morkan of
Robinson & Cole of Hartford, said the judges' decision would
dictate whether or not they could modify the contracts.
The appeal was heard Thursday in New
York City and neither Rand-Whitney nor the town are expecting a
decision to be announced for a few weeks.
There are three contracts the town
signed with Rand-Whitney in the early '90s: a water supply agreement, a
wastewater treatment agreement and a modification agreement.
They are valid 45 years with an
option for the paper company to extend the agreements another 20 years.
It was over the water supply
agreement that Rand-Whitney sued the town in 1996.
The water supply agreement, signed
in 1992, provided that the mill's wastewater would be treated
separately from the town's general effluent. The segregation process
was proposed by Tom Bowen, the former Water Pollution Control Authority
superintendent, and approved by the Department of Environmental
Protection.
Shortly after the DEP approved the
plan, it rescinded its approval and required the town to mix its
effluent with the general effluent.
Rand-Whitney says the treated
wastewater has an excessive amount of dissolved solids, or salt, which
corrupts the papermaking process.
James Cobery, an attorney for
Rand-Whitney, said in a previous interview that only nine days after
the mill went online in 1996, there were problems.
”There was so much salt in the
water, the boiler couldn't boil,” Cobery said. “It's like a washing
machine with too much foam.”
From that point on, the town was
unable to meet the quality requirements of the water-supply agreement.
The mill can still make the recycled
paper, but at a greater cost. The lawsuit, which could cost the town
nearly $16 million, is for past and present damages for the
Rand-Whitney plant.
If Rand-Whitney wins the appeal,
their attorney James Cobery has already said the contract wouldn't be
modified.
Court hears arguments by Montville,
Rand-Whitney ; Town fighting to avoid $16 million settlement
DAY
By Amy Renczkowski
Published on 7/18/2008
New York - Attorneys for
Rand-Whitney Containerboard Corp. and the town of Montville argued
before the U.S. 2nd District Court of Appeals Thursday over the
validity of 6-year-old testimony by the town's former Water Pollution
Control Authority superintendent.
The hearing could mark the end of
the 12-year court battle between Montville and Rand-Whitney over the
quality of water the town's WPCA provided the mill for its paper-making
processes.
If it loses the appeal, Montville
would have to pay a nearly $16 million settlement, including interest
and legal fees. Rand-Whitney was awarded the settlement after the
original federal jury trial, which came out in the town's favor, was
reversed.
Montville's attorney, Linda Morkan
of Robinson & Cole LLP in Hartford, didn't waste any time before
she told the judges - Guido Calabresi, Jon Newman and Barrington Parker
- that the original judgment in favor of the town shouldn't have been
reversed.
”It was the jury's job to decide and
they answered it,” Morkan said.
Most of the discussion inside the
ceremonial courtroom on the ninth floor of the courthouse focused on
the testimony of ex-WPCA Superintendent Thomas Bowen when the trial was
first heard in 2002. Morkan argued that Bowen relied on information
provided by Rand-Whitney that the quality of effluent discharged by the
new mill would be the same as, or similar to, the effluent discharged
by the old plant.
She said the town entered into the
water-supply agreement with “reassurance” from Rand-Whitney. But the
amount of TDS - total dissolved solids - in the water was much more
than both Rand-Whitney and the town expected, according to Morkan.
After talks with town officials
about possible remedies, Rand-Whitney spent millions of dollars to
upgrade the WPCA's treatment facility and filed the lawsuit.
Judge Parker asked if Bowen relied
on anyone else to give him information about the expected quality of
the water.
Morkan said her interpretation of
Bowen's testimony is that he was only concerned with two specific
components of the water, and not the TDS levels, because the town
needed to comply with Department of Environmental Protection rules.
”Bowen by nature was a cautious
man,” Morkan said. “Why would the town agree to supply water when it
had no way of satisfying the agreement?”
Judge Calabresi said it was
remarkable that Bowen conducted all the tests he did, and even had a
backup plan he was going to run by the DEP, yet he didn't test the
amount of TDS in the water.
Rand-Whitney attorney Daniel
Goldberg of Bingham McCutchen LLP in Boston argued that Bowen wasn't
misrepresented by the paper company and that Rand-Whitney did not
defraud the town.
”Bowen said several times when asked
that he didn't rely on what they said,” Goldberg said.
The process
A few town councilors and members of
the WPCA attended the hearing. On the way to the courthouse, Town
Council Chairman Candy Buebendorf bought a $1 fortune at a Buddhist
temple in Chinatown. She waited to open it until just before she
entered court and then smiled.
”The probability of success:
excellent,” it read.
The hearing for the appeal lasted
less than an hour, and the judges said they wouldn't render a decision
that day. Both groups think the judgment won't be announced for a few
weeks.
WPCA chairman Gene Jambor said he
thinks the important parts of the case were addressed, despite the
limited time.
”I think they're all on the fence,”
Jambor said. “All three judges.”
Councilor Rosetta Jones said she
thought Morkan's arguments were solid.
”I'm just praying for the town and
taxpayers that we win,” Jones said. “It could be catastrophic.”
Rand-Whitney spokesman Pat Kinney
said the company was pleased with the proceedings, saying, “We're
looking forward to the judge's decision.”
Mayor Joseph Jaskiewicz didn't
attend the hearing but said he remained optimistic about the case when
reached by phone later in the day.
”We have to sit and wait and light a
lot of candles,” Jaskiewicz said.
---------------------------
THE MOTIONS
The Town of Montville's appeal contains four motions:
Lawmakers Oppose 'Gift' Of $5.5 Million
To Rand Whitney; Funds are 'incentive' to create power station that
already exists
DAY
By Ted Mann
Published on 11/21/2007
A group of state lawmakers are seeking to prevent $5.5 million in
proposed grant payments to Rand Whitney Containerboard Corp., calling
it a “gift” that would set a “dangerous precedent” by allowing
companies to take public funds as incentives for power generation
stations that have already been built.
The lawmakers objected in letters to the Department of Public Utility
Control, which is expected to rule this morning on whether to issue a
grant totaling more than $6 million to Rand Whitney, as part of a 2005
state program that was intended to encourage large electric users to
generate some of their own power, thereby lessening the strain on the
state's electric grid. The grants come directly from individual
electric customers — they are raised by a surcharge on monthly bills.
“Those of us in the Legislature often find energy issues complicated,
but this seems fairly clear,” wrote Rep. Joan A. Lewis, D-Coventry.
“When we provide an incentive grant, it is for something that we expect
to happen in the future, not to pay for something that already exists.”
Rand Whitney's lobbyists convinced legislative leaders to include a
little-noticed provision in sweeping energy legislation passed this
spring, which they contend should entitle the company to receive grants
for the power turbine it installed in its Montville plant before the
incentive program began, provided the turbine is upgraded to be more
efficient.
But a few of those who voted for that energy bill to become law now say
that's never what they intended to do, and argue that it doesn't make
any sense to pay public money to a private company for actions it has
already taken.
“Providing 'incentives' to a company for something they have already
done is nothing more than a gift,” wrote Rep. Deborah W. Heinrich,
D-Madison, “and there is nothing in your charter which allows you to
distribute gifts of ratepayer funds.”
The intent of the provision in the energy bill “was in no way to
provide grants for generation that has already been built,” wrote Rep.
Betsy Ritter, D-Waterford.
The lawmakers' letters urged the DPUC to approve a grant only for the
new megawatts that the company's proposed improvements would provide,
or about $880,000.
Spokesmen for Rand Whitney have defended their grant application. In a
written statement earlier this month, the company's director of
regulatory affairs, Paul Schaffman, said the addition of the company's
generating turbine in Montville “will benefit consumers of electricity
throughout the state.”
The company's powerful lobbyists have also been busy, from convincing
legislators to include the new language, which was tucked into Section
20 of the 114-section energy bill this spring, to a series of e-mails
to DPUC commissioners, urging them to conclude that the changes in the
law entitle Rand Whitney to the full $6.39 million the company seeks.
“... As we have stated, the statute is clear and intends to allow
companies like Rand Whitney to qualify for prior investment if they
meet the criteria set out in statute,” wrote Jay F. Malcynsky, a
prominent state lobbyist and Republican political consultant, in an
Oct. 16 e-mail to Commissioner Anthony Palermino, two weeks before
Palermino issued a draft ruling that concurred with that analysis. The
e-mails were obtained under the state's open records law.
That's the same conclusion reached by Sen. John Fonfara, D-Hartford,
the co-chairman of the legislature's Energy and Technology Committee
and an architect of the 2007 energy bill, who wrote in a letter to the
DPUC that the company's arguments “properly represent the intent of the
General Assembly.”
But others said they would never have supported such a measure,
including Reps. Vickie Nardello, D-Prospect, Henry Genga, D-East
Hartford, and Kim Fawcett, D-Fairfield.
Their letters are in accord with the filings submitted by Joseph A.
Rosenthal, the principal attorney in the state Office of Consumer
Counsel, who has called the proposed grant an “outrageous gift” of
ratepayer funds, and pledged to fight the DPUC ruling in court if it is
ratified by the commissioners.
“It is perhaps sad that Rand Whitney built their plant a bit too early
(before that grant program),” Rosenthal wrote in an e-mail message to
staff in October, “but what that means is — they didn't need our money
to build it.”
Judge Rejects Town's Bond In
Rand-Whitney Suit, Judge Wants The Bond Rewritten; Montville Mayor Will
Re-File
Immediately
DAY
By Amy Renczkowski
Published on
9/13/2007
Montville — A U.S. Second Circuit
Court judge announced Tuesday that she would not approve a $16 million
bond filed by the town in a lawsuit by Rand-Whitney Containerboard
Corp.
In August, the town filed an appeal
to the court in a lawsuit over the quality of water provided to the
company by the town Water Pollution Control Authority. The company uses
the water in its papermaking processes.
Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons, who was
previously overseeing the case in U.S. District Court in Bridgeport,
demanded that Montville post bond if it wanted to appeal the lawsuit.
Travelers' Casualty and Surety Co. of America issued the bond.
The bond protects Rand-Whitney if
Montville loses its appeal. James Cobery, an attorney for Rand-Whitney,
said the bond would make it easier to collect if the judgment is in the
company's favor.
Fitzsimmons argued that the language
in the bond was not clear. She said the wording of the bond needs to be
written so that the judgment would be paid within 90 days of the Court
of Appeals decision.
“This time period is based on the
representations made in earlier filings by the defendants (Montville)
that it would take 90 days to obtain referendum approval to issue
municipal bonds,” she said.
During the time it takes the town to
file another bond, the paper mill can act on the judgment while the
appeal is pending. Representatives from Rand-Whitney said they hope
that isn't needed.
“We hope that the town solves this
problem, and they post a bond so that that isn't necessary,” said
Patrick Kinney, spokesman for Rand-Whitney.
Mayor Joseph Jaskiewicz said he
would issue another bond “as quick as possible” and hopes to have
another one filed and approved by Monday.
Fitzsimmons also denied the town's
motion to stay the execution of judgment. In the town's motion for
approval of the bond and stay of execution of judgment, it claimed
Rand-Whitney has refused to pay Montville more than $235,000 in service
fees and payments in July and August. Rand-Whitney's service fee and
bond payments make up more than one-third of the Water Pollution
Control Authority's operating budget. It is the highest-paying
recipient of WPCA services.
Fitzsimmons said the town hasn't
taken any steps to prepare for the possibility that it might have to
satisfy the large judgment entered against them. The town is aware that
post-judgment interest, at current rates, is accruing at approximately
$50,000 a month. Despite this knowledge, she said the town has failed
to allocate any funds to pay the judgment or to post a bond.
“(Montville) has had sufficient time
to conduct a referendum for voter approval to issue municipal bonds.
... Instead, the town took no action,” she said. “The defendants
(Montville) cannot provide adequate assurances that a referendum will
result in approval and, in fact, based on the history and political
sensitivity of this litigation, it is uncertain that the voters will
approve this authority.”
Jaskiewicz said that when the second
bond is approved, Rand-Whitney would be required to start paying the
service fees it owes.
Kinney said the judge's decision
speaks for itself.
“It is unfortunate that the town
has, for so long, ignored its legal obligation,” he said. “It is
extremely frustrating to face a situation where the town continues to
act as though the judgment does not exist.”
Rand-Whitney judge rejects Montville's
bond proposal; Calls the wording
inadequate to secure $15 million worth judgements
Norwich Bulletin
Sep 12, 2007 @ 05:47 PM
MONTVILLE - A federal judge has rejected Montville
proposal to float a bond while it appeals $15 million worth of
legal judgments that have been awarded to Rand-Whitney Containerboard.
In a 12-page decision issued on
Sept. 12, U.S. Magistrate Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons disapproved the
town’s motion for a supersedeas bond, in which a third party, usually
an insurance company, holds the money until all appeals are exhausted.
Rand-Whitney won a $10 million
judgment against the town in 2005 stemming from a dispute over the
quality of water that the paperboard company was receiving from the
town’s Water Pollution Control Authority.
An additional $3 million in costs
and attorney’s fees was added by Fitzsimmons in October 2006. The town
is running up interest charges of about $50,000 a month while it
appeals the case, most recently to the U.S. 2nd Circuit in New York
City.
Fitzsimmons on Tuesday rejected the
bond proposal, saying that the language in the bond was “inadequate to
secure timely payment of the judgment.”
Settle With Rand-Whitney
DAY editorial
Published on 8/10/2007
The town of Montville faces a lose-lose situation in its lawsuit with
Rand Whitney Containerboard Corp. The town should negotiate a payoff to
the company because its chances of winning the lawsuit on appeal to the
2nd Circuit federal court are minimal and the town's financial exposure
is large.
This is not a case of the town's having nothing to lose by appealing.
Montville already lost the case in a state court and lost an appeal in
federal District Court. The odds are that Montville stands to pay
millions of dollars more by pursuing a case in which the evidence is
clear against the town. In fact, in her decision, federal District
Court Judge Holly Fitzsimmons warned Montville about a larger potential
liability and chastised the town for not acting more judiciously.
“... The defendants' motion disturbingly and repeatedly distorts and
mischaracterizes the record, and misstates the facts,” Judge
Fitzsimmons said in her decision.
Prosecuting that appeal to the finish is likely to result in very large
additional legal fees. In that instance, the prospect of pushing the
town's financial liability beyond the $16 million figure awarded by a
United States District Court judge is very real. Negotiating a
settlement is more realistic, responsible and beneficial to Montville.
Montville taxpayers are going to face severe financial pain either way,
but it's possible the town could save itself more than $3 million or $4
million if it recognized reality and negotiated a conclusion to the
case.
Town officials shouldn't blame Rand Whitney. The company is doing what
any business would do: protect its financial interests. The fundamental
problem is that Montville town officials many years ago agreed to a
contract with Rand Whitney that the town is incapable of meeting
regarding the providing of high-quality water for the plant's operation.
Mayor Joseph Jaskiewicz and other town officials thus are stuck with
the unenviable task of defending actions by previous town
administrations that are, practically speaking, indefensible. No matter
what happens, Montville's financial liability is very high and
taxpayers will be clobbered in either case — a negotiated settlement or
the penalties likely to result from the appeals process.
The mayor disagrees. He says: “We offered them a $10 million
settlement. The $16 million is too much and we wouldn't be protected in
the future. These are our concerns.”
Of course, there is still sentiment in Montville that the town might
win the appeal and be home free. This is wishful thinking and exposes
town residents to even more financial risk if the 2nd Circuit were to
uphold the lower-court ruling, which appears very likely. Despite the
heat town officials are taking and the enmity felt by residents toward
them and Rand-Whitney, it would be irresponsible of Montville's elected
officers to buck the long odds and risk an even greater financial loss
by appealing the case.
If the town officials think the $16 million figure is too high, they
should negotiate a reduction in the amount. But appealing the case
opens the town to excessive liability.
Mayor Jaskiewicz, who understands the situation clearly, needs to
overcome the more strident voices in town and tell the people honestly
and bluntly what could happen if Montville loses an appeal. Such candor
would require political courage not only from the mayor but also from
other councilors and public officials.
There is no hiding behind trees on this one. Montville's officials
messed up more than a decade ago and taxpayers are now going to pay a
significant penalty for their ineptness. There's no way to sugarcoat
those facts.
But Montville officials can limit the financial damage, large as it
already is, by ending their fight and negotiating a settlement. They
should do that posthaste.
Rand Whitney tells Montville no deal
By RAY HACKETT, Norwich Bulletin
January 31, 2007
MONTVILLE -- Rand Whitney will not
accept the $10 million settlement offer the Town Council approved
Monday night, the lawyer representing the company said Tuesday.
"We're not going to accept that,"
James E. Cobery said.
Instead, the company has renewed its
previous settlement offer -- a $13.5 million lump sum payment or a
$12.5 million settlement with "town cooperation" in helping the company
obtain a water division permit from the state Department of
Environmental Protection. Cobery outlined those two options in a letter
sent to town officials before Monday's special Town Council meeting.
Montville is facing a $16 million
U.S. District Court judgment in favor of Rand Whitney. It includes
$55,000 in interest added for each month no resolution is reached. Town
officials have not decide whether to appeal the court judgment, but if
they do, the town will be required to post a $16 million bond pending a
final outcome -- adding to a potential taxpayer impact when the matter
finally is resolved.
"If neither side does anything, the
appeal goes forward, and two years from now we will have a final,
non-appealable $16 million judgment in our favor. We would prefer that
didn't happen," Cobery said Tuesday. "We're willing to accept a 25
percent reduction of the $16 million judgment, together with a little
cooperation from the town, to bring this matter to an end."
Water
dispute
The
legal battle centers on a contract where the town provides the company
with water. Company officials claim the water quality is well below the
standard outlined in the agreement, resulting in corrosion of the
plants pipes and equipment.
The council voted 4-3 Monday to
authorizes Mayor Joseph Jaskiewicz to make a written $10 million
settlement offer, and authorized him to execute that agreement pending
final council approval. The resolution contained no time frame or
deadline.
Jaskiewicz, who is recovering from
an illness, could not be reached Tuesday for comment. Cobery said he
wishes Jaskiewicz a speedy recovery so discussions of a negotiated
settlement could continue.
Scott Boyle of New London is
building a house in Montville. He said he knew about the long-standing
legal battle before he bought property in Montville, but the potential
impact on taxes didn't dissuade him. Now, though, he'd like to know
what the impact is, and what the town is going to do to avoid future
claims.
"My main concern is the contract
(between the town and company)," Boyle said. "I think that needs to be
extinguished. If there's going to be a $10 million settlement, if
that's the final number, then you have to do something about that
contract."
The potential impact on taxes
worried Ron Bouchard of Norwich enough that he bought property in
Lebanon rather than a house in Montville.
"For the same priced house, you're
looking at about a $1,500 tax difference right now," he said, "and
that's before anyone knows what kind of impact this is going to have on
taxes (in Montville). It could be significant. And not knowing, that
was a concern."
By Amy Renczkowski , Special
To The Day
Published on 1/30/2007
Montville — The Town Council voted
4-3 Monday night to authorize the mayor to publicly offer Rand-Whitney
Containerboard $10 million to settle litigation the firm initiated more
than a decade ago. The
proposal also calls for a $1 million indemnification cap to protect the
town from additional payments.
It marked the first time
negotiations have been made public in the lawsuit over the quality of
treated wastewater the town's Water Pollution Control Authority
provides the company for its papermaking operations. The litigation
could cost the town almost $16 million. Councilor Billy Caron proposed the
resolution to make public the settlement's terms. “It's the right thing
to do, inform the citizens and let them know what we've been doing,” he
said.
The town is still obligated by the
contract it signed with Rand-Whitney in 1996 and which led to the
litigation. Montville resident Russell Wehner said the termination of
the contract should be part of the settlement.
“The problem isn't going to be
solved if the contract still exists,” he said.
Last week, Judge Holly B.
Fitzsimmons demanded that Montville post a bond if it wants to appeal a
judgment in the lawsuit, which is pending in U.S. District Court in
Bridgeport. Fitzsimmons
denied the town's motion to be given relief from posting a bond and
ordered Montville to ask the town's citizens to approve a $16 million
bond or to pay an appeal bond for 1 percent of the judgment or $160,000
a year, until the appeal is decided.
“If we give the Kraft family (owner
of Rand-Whitney) another break, it would be a crime to every resident
in Montville,” said Gary Murphy, chief of the Oakdale Fire Co. “We've
bent over backwards for them.”
Murphy said he was always in favor
of the settlement proposals being made public to the community.
“Everybody would like to be
well-informed. How can I make an honest answer without knowing all the
facts?” Murphy asked.
Rand-Whitney General Manager James
Wood was the only representative from the company at the meeting. He
said that over the years there have been a number of opportunities to
settle the lawsuit.
“I honestly thought we had a
settlement back in September,” Wood said. “People shook hands. I
thought it was finally behind us.”
Wood is also uneasy about the
ongoing dispute.
“Sixteen-million dollars is staring
us all in the face,” Wood said. “It's not pretty when you do the math.”
Montville — After 10 years of litigation, a federal judge has entered a $13.5 million judgment against the town of Montville and in favor of Rand-Whitney Containerboard, which successfully argued that the public water the town sends the company is of poor quality.
Last year a federal jury entered a $10 million verdict against the town, but it wasn't until Thursday that Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons of U.S. District Court in Bridgeport accepted it and ordered the town to pay that amount, plus $3.5 million in legal fees and interest.
Former Montville Employee
Sent to Jail for Embezzlement
DAY
By Karen Florin
Published on 3/22/2007
Longtime Montville employee Linda K.
Rivera was sentenced to 90 days in prison and five years of probation
today for embezzling more than $51,500 from the town's Water Pollution
Control Authority.
Rivera, 52, has made full
restitution, but Judge Susan B. Handy ordered her to pay an additional
$55,000 that the town spent conducting an audit and paying Rivera while
investigating the theft.
With town officials and her husband
looking on, Rivera apologized to her family, town employees and
citizens of Montville before she was led away to prison.
"She is genuinely remorseful and
very sorry for what's occurred," said her attorney, John Cocheo.
Her formal sentence, for
first-degree larceny, is three years in prison, suspended after 90
days, and five years of probation.
Montville Official Pleads Guilty to
Embezzlement
DAY
By Karen Florin
Published on 1/23/2007
Former Montville Water Control
Pollution Authority administrator Linda Rivera pleaded guilty this
morning in New London Superior Court to embezzling more than $51,500
from the authority between 2003 and 2005.
The 52-year-old Willimantic
woman faces up to six months in prison when she is sentenced on March
6. She pleaded guilty to first-degree larceny.
Rivera has paid the money back and
it will be turned over to the town prior to her sentencing, according
to Prosecutor Lawrence J. Tytla. Judge Susan B. Handy said she would
also consider ordering restitution of costs involved with auditing the
WPCA funds, attorneys and employee overtime accrued during the
investigation.
Rivera had served as deputy
administrator for the WPCA since 1994.
Montville Official Resigns In Anger -
Head of beleaguered WPCA blasts town for 'tying my hands'
DAY
By Eileen Mcnamara
Published on 6/20/2006
Montville — Michael Hillsberg, administrator of the town's beleaguered
Water Pollution Control Authority, is stepping down, citing mounting
frustrations with the authority's problems. In a letter to
authority members last week, Hillsberg blasted town
leaders for what he said is their effort to “restrict our
reorganization efforts and to publicly humiliate the staff.”
Hillsberg, who works as the authority's part-time administrator and
earns about $17,000 per year, also blamed the town for forcing up the
costs of the WPCA's operations and “tying my hands on what existing
staff and myself are able to accomplish.”
As an example, Hillsberg, who works as the finance director in
Hebron,
cited the hiring of a part-time clerk in the WPCA's offices instead of
a full-time employee, as WPCA officials had recommended. His
resignation, effective Saturday, comes on the heels of a report
from the town's auditors detailing significant and numerous errors in
the WPCA's accounts. It also comes about a month after the WPCA's
former deputy administrator was arrested on a larceny charge in
connection with $51,000 in missing WPCA funds.
Hillsberg could not be reached for comment Monday. Eugene Jambor,
the authority's chairman, said the agency would meet soon to decide
what to do next.
“We'll have a special meeting and decide ... what would be best for the
town and the WPCA,” Jambor said. He also said the authority is still
working on a plan to correct the problems noted in the recent auditor's
report. Officials have said the deficiencies are related to poor
bookkeeping and not more missing money. Mayor Joseph Jaskiewicz
said Hillsberg's abrupt resignation comes as a
surprise. He also said he was disappointed that Hillsberg blamed town
officials for the WPCA's woes.
A subcommittee of the Town Council recently recommended merging the
authority's accounting functions with the town to provide better
oversight of the agency's fiscal responsibilities. The full council,
however, narrowly defeated the proposal, which was drafted after the
town discovered that the WPCA's long-time deputy administrator, Linda
Rivera, had misappropriated funds.
Rivera was fired and later arrested. Her case is pending in New London
Superior Court.
In his resignation letter, Hillsberg accused Jaskiewicz of seeking to
have the town take over the WPCA's accounting functions “so that
salaries of finance staff can be increased ...” He also said some town
councilors are intent “on bashing the WPCA.”
Jaskiewicz defended his staff and the council. He said it was
independent auditors who recommended merging the WPCA's accounting
functions with the town and who brought to the town's attention the
accounting problems in the authority's offices.
“This is what the auditors said –– that's not a public embarrassment,”
Jaskiewicz said.
Besides it's accounting deficiencies and the arrest of one of its
former officials, the town and WPCA were sued by one of the authority's
biggest customers, Rand-Whitney Containerboard, over the quality of
water the authority provides the paper company. A federal jury has
ruled that the town must pay Rand-Whitney $10 million in damages in
that case. Rand-Whitney also is seeking about $4.5 million in legal
fees from the town.
The judge overseeing it has not yet ruled on either the jury verdict or
Rand-Whitney's request for legal fees.